Section 299 of the 1999 Constitution, be it noted, regards the FCT, Abuja “as if it were one of the States of the Federation”. Accordingly, for all intents and purposes, FCT High Court, under the Constitution, is no more than a State High Court. The Constitution has never intended it to be a High Court at large with Jurisdiction over matters outside its territory.
– E. Eko JSC. Mailantarki v. Tongo (2017) – SC.792/2015
SHARE ON
Although, unlike the 1979 Constitution, Section 318(1) of the present Constitution does not define “High Court”, there is no doubt that the term carries the same meaning as given by Section 277(1) of the 1979 Constitution to mean Federal High Court or the High Court of a State. Therefore, it is my understanding that where a person’s fundamental right is breached, being breached or about to be breached, that person may apply under section 46(1) to the Judicial division of the Federal High Court in the State or the High Court of the State or that of the Federal Capital Territory in which the breach occurred or is occurring or about to occur. This is irrespective of whether the right involved comes within the legislative competence of the Federation or the State or the Federal Capital Territory, See the case of Minister of Internal Affairs v. Shugaba (1982) 3 NCLR 915. It has to however be noted that the exercise of this jurisdiction by the Federal High Court is where the fundamental right threatened or breached falls within the enumerated matters on which that court has jurisdiction. Thus, fundamental rights arising from matters outside its jurisdiction cannot be enforced by the Federal High Court. See: Tukur v. Government of Gongola State (1989) 3 NSCC 225. Equally, a High Court of a State shall lack jurisdiction to entertain matters of fundamental rights, although brought pursuant to section 46(2) of the Constitution where the alleged breach of such matters arose from a transaction or subject matter which fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal High Court as provided by Section 251 of the Constitution.
— I.T. Muhammad, JSC. Adetona & Ors. v Igele (2011) – SC.237/2005
The Federal High Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Aviation related causes of action. See Section 251 (1) K of the Constitution; and a plaintiff, claimant would have a valid claim if his suit is commenced within two years from the date of arrival at his destination or from the date on which the aircraft ought to have arrived or from the date the flight ended. See Article 29 of both Legislations.
– Rhodes-Vivour, JSC. Cameroon v. Otutuizu (2011) – SC.217/2004
The jurisdiction of the court is determined by the cause of action of the plaintiff as endorsed on the writ of summons or from both the writ of summons and the statement of claim. Where however, an action is commenced by Originating summons then it is the reliefs sought as well as the averments in the affidavit in support of the originating process that would be examined to discern if the court has jurisdiction. These would be relied on if the facts placed before the court as contained in the statement of claim or the affidavit in the case of originating summons are clear and unambiguous to enable it determine the issue. This is because it is the plaintiff who invokes the constitutional right for a determination of his right and accordingly the exercise of the judicial powers of the Constitution vested in the courts. See: A-G., Oyo State v. NLC (2003) 8 NWLR (Pt. 821) page 1; Akande & 2 Ors. v. Busari Alagbe & Anor, (2001) FWLR (Pt. 38) page 1352, (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt.690) 353; A.-G., Federation v. Guardian Newspaper Ltd. & 5 Ors. (2001) FWLR (Pt. 32) page 93, (1999) 9 NWLR (Pt. 618) 187; Messrs N. V. Scheep & Anor. v. The MV’s Araz & Anor. (2000) FWLR (Pt 34) page 556, (2000) 15 NWLR (Pt. 691) 622; NEPA v. Atukpor (2001) FWLR (Pt. 20) page 626, (2000) 1 NWLR (Pt. 693) 96; General Sani Abacha & 3 Ors. v. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (2000) FWLR (Pt. 4) page 557, (2000) 6 NWLR (Pt. 660) 228; Okulate & 4 Ors. v. Awosanya & 2 Ors. (2000) 2 NWLR (Pt. 646) page 530-6.
— Aboki, JCA. Action Congress v INEC (2007) – CA/A/101/07
Madukolu v. Nkemdilim (1962) 1 All NLR 587 per Bairamian FJ as follows:- “Put briefly, a court is competent when: It is properly constituted as regards numbers and qualifications of the members of the bench, and no member is disqualified for one reason or another; (2) The subject matter of the case is within its jurisdiction and there is no feature in the case which prevents the court from exercising its jurisdiction; and the case comes before the court initiated by the due process of law and upon fulfillment of any condition precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction.”
Illegality of a contract or transaction, whenever it is raised as a defence to a claim founded on the said transaction, impacts on the jurisdiction of the court. When the contract on which the plaintiff sues is ex facie illegal, the courts will decline to enforce it for the courts exercise their jurisdiction only to administer the law of the land. They do not exercise their jurisdiction to help the Plaintiff break the law. See GEORGE & ORS v. DOMINION FLOUR MILLS LTD (1963) 1 ALL NLR 71; IBRAHIM v. OSIM (1988) NWLR 257; BARCLAYS BANK D.O.C. v, MEMUNATU HASSAN (1961) ALL NLR 836.
— E. Eko, JSC. CITEC v. Edicomisa (2017) – SC. 163 2006
The general principle of law, backed up by legion of authorities from the apex Court is that where a jurisdiction of a Court is challenged, the Court should expeditiously attend to the objection before taking any other further step in the proceedings. The rationale behind this practice is that the question of jurisdiction of Court is a radical and crucial question of competence, for if a Court has no jurisdiction to hear and determine a case, the totality of the proceedings, including orders made therein, are and remain a nullity, no matter how well conducted and brilliantly decided they might be. In other words, once an issue of jurisdiction is raised, until it is resolved, the Court cannot hear any other applications or any issue except to first determine whether it is possessed of the jurisdiction to determine the case. The Supreme Court has stated severally that it is an exhibition of wisdom to first determine when the Court has the jurisdiction to entertain the matter before it. See Yusuf vs. Egbe (1987) 2 NWLR (Pt. 56) 341, Dapianlong vs. Dariye (2007) 8 NWLR (Pt. 1036) 332, Ukwu vs. Bunge (1997) 8 NWLR (Pt. 518) 527, Nnonye vs. Anyichie (2005) 2 NWLR (Pt. 910) 623, A – G Anambra vs. A-G, Federation (1993) 6 NWLR (Pt. 321) 962.
— T. Akomolafe-Wilson, JCA. Onnoghen v. FRN (2019) – CA/A/44C/2019
Click the icons to like, follow, and join JPoetry